Joe O'Toole (Independent)

There may be a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Quinn. This has nothing to do with trade unions. I am not talking about trade unions or unionised workplaces here. I am simply stating that under section 1(1) the Bill defines appointed representatives of employees, the same people who are referred to in amendment No. 48 of Senator White and Senator Quinn, which inserts "to be informed and consulted through their representatives (as defined under this Act)". It is not referring to the Trade Union Acts. It is simply referring to the people who have been selected, appointed or elected by the employer depending on whichever way it is done under section 1(1). All I am stating is that they should not be excluded. For the purposes of this Act, they must be the ones who are involved in the consultation and receive the information. That does not block the employer, if he or she wishes to do so, from speaking with individuals or groups. If for the purposes of this Act it is okay to talk about the representatives under amendment No. 48, I do not see why it is not okay for me to talk about the same representatives. It is not about outside people at this point. I am talking about the people who have been selected under section 1(1). Nobody has asked what is wrong with doing this. It certainly does not stop anybody from doing anything they want to do but it is a requirement that the people who have being selected to do a job are allowed do it.

I say the following with absolute clarity. This is not blocking anybody. This is not taking in anybody from outside. This is simply saying that having gone through the process of selecting, electing or appointing people on an agreed basis, they are then part of the consultation and the information flow. Why is that not acceptable? I seek a direct understanding of the problem being created here. If we go the first step, why not the second step, which does not block anybody from talking to anybody and which only means for the purposes of the Act?